 |
|
|
schoelink
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $875.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great added value for my 10D with the 1.6 cropfactor.
Great contrast
Fast en silent autofocus
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is to big!
|
|
|
|
|
 Dec 29, 2005
|
|
hijkim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $669.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build. Sharp. Fast AF. No hunting. Full time manual focus. Light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS. Big Hood. F4
|
|
|
I got this lens to replace my EF-S 18-55mm kit lens for 350D and to be my walk around lens but it is not a good walk around lens even on 350D, not long enough. But it is soooo much better than 18-55 I had it on my camera all the time until I got EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM. Noise is way down and CA is much better. The sharpness is about the same as EF 24-105mm IS USM but with no distortion and little CA. I use it as my Wide Angle lens now, only on my camera 10% of the time.
The hood does not fit in my camera bag so I never get to use it unless I’m shooting at home. I’m getting a backpack just to carry around the hood of this lens and hood for 24-105mm. Truthfully I’m getting the backpack to carry around my laptop with my camera gears.
After getting 24-105 and EF 70-300mm IS USM, I rely on the IS so much I wish 17-40 had it also I think all F/4L lenses should have IS.
Overall I really like the images from this lens. The color is little on the warm side. It is like my EF-S 60mm Macro with warming filter on but I like it
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2005
|
|
execom99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 173
|
|
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
perfect build, very good handling with 20D, sharp @ f4 and very sharp from f5.6, contrast is amazing, no visible CA, silent USM, L quality
|
|
Cons:
|
77mm filters, big hood
|
|
|
really must-have lens for canon dSLR, build quality and optical performance are execelent
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2005
|
|
Califfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2005
|
|
anndel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness, myh most used walk-around lens on my 20D. Light and "L" optical quality. Low priced cost effective L-lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some softness which is expected for this price.
|
|
|
I bought this lens as a replacement for the 28-135 IS USM as my walk around lens for traveling though I brought both on my previous trips. I found I liked the picture quality of the 17-40 better than the 28-135 so this lens sits on my 20D all the time. For the price I paid, I expected the lens not to perform as well as the 24-70 at twice the price. When zoomed in at 200% in Photoshop, I can tell the difference but I'm not dwelling on the small details.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2005
|
|
mariusg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $680.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap FF WA lens, weight, size, range.
|
|
Cons:
|
very soft esp on FF corners. Minimum F4. Extends/contracts during zoom (and it's noisy too). Bluish cast. Expensive for what it does
|
|
I first got this when I was using the 300D knowing I will update to FF soon. I knew it's supposed to be soft, but not THAT soft. The kit lens at 18mm f3.5 was sharper than this thing at F4. It could be that my kit lens was an excellent copy, but.. that doesn't matter. I also compared it with a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and all can I say: people must be really crazy to get 17-40 for crop sensors (or to get 17-40 for 4x6 prints?). I can't believe how many positive reviews are there, I guess not everyone is able to evaluate a 1:1 crop, or not every person has another lens for comparison and spends some time with the lens.
When I upgraded to full frame I found it simply unusable for all-purpose wide angle lens. I don't use it at all, and I can't find a convenient replacement.
Summary for 1.6x crop: Really soft in corners, in center is unacceptable, sigma 18-50@F4 is much sharper, and Canon 50mm 2.5 Macro wide open is sharper than both the long end and F4 ;-))) (17-40@40 instead of 50mm of course).
Summary for FF: If you have low MP or print small, it's ok at around F8 and some crop. But otherwise is a really soft lens that you will use just because there is no alternative in this price range.
It's ok for web pictures. It does not deserve the red ring.
And no, it's not my copy, but I'm probably stricter than most people.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2005
|
|
Tom C. Amon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 71
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, Great Range on my 1.6x sensor, Light weight, Fast, color, and did I say sharp. This lens is the only the second lens that made me say, yes this is what I was looking for (out of many) the other was my 70-200L 2.8. Now my walk around lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
f4 maybe, but you gotta love a lighter lens that you never get with the 2.8 and L
|
|
|
Simply just the perfect lens for my 20D and walking around. The range always seems to be there. The color is right on and the pictures are sharp. The CA is very low (with my side by side test with others).
The lens hood is small but it seems to work even though it doesn't look like it would. For all you others that complain I wonder if you are just looking at the hood and saying "That couldn't work." Well maybe Canon has actually tested it or something. Hooked it up to a optical machine worth more than any of us earn in a year. I think they do more than tape used magnifying glasses together. Ya’ think? Canon never seemed to be shy about making big lens hoods if needed.
Well I love it and think that it will also be outstanding on my next full frame sensor when I get it. This year nest year or when ever, this piece of glass will still be strong.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2005
|
|
I Simonius
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Better than the equivalent Fixed FLs 17-24 inc. (except for speed & therefore VF brightness)
Close minimum focussing
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit ropey at the long end
|
|
|
I would have given higher build rating but my first two copies were duds, both had OOF areas and one clunked when zoomed. Current copy is a cracker though
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2005
|
|
evangellydonut
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $561.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp for the entire focal range at wide open
|
|
Cons:
|
my copy is softer at bottom right corner than bottom left...
|
|
|
Got it used locally, via eBay. Very sharp throughout 17-40mm F4. from 24-40mm range using Aperature priority, it utilizes faster shutter speed than the 24-105. F4 in the 24-40mm range is as sharp as my 24-105 at F5.6. However, I'm keeping the 24-105 as I'm hoping that 30D will be a 1.3x crop camera, which makes 17-40 less ideal of a walk-around lens than on a 1.6x crop.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2005
|
|
JORDI350D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It is very sharp at all diaphragms (even f4). It is not heavy. Very good quality and the ring zoom is very confortable to use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood. I prefer that was 17-50. You need other lenses in order to complement the focal range.
|
|
|
I think that it is a very good canon lense. Perfect in all the focal range in 1.6 factor. I know that in full frame has more problems with vignetting.
The lens hood is ridiculous for 1.6 factor. I bougth the EW-83DII lens from other Canon L lense that goes very well.
The lens has (IMHO) only one problem that you must complement with other lenses for up and down.
Jordi
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2005
|
|
kendallkoning
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 90
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excelent normal zoom on 1.6 AND wide angle on full frame. Optical quality, build.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2005
|
|
LMCasey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 109
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $560.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Excellent color and contrast. Very reasonable price. Excellent overall performance at all focal lengths and apertures.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is rediculously big.
|
|
|
I really can't find much to fault with the 17-40. It just does what it's supposed to do. A great lens.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2005
|
|
Shaitan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Built quality, AF extremely fast, sharpness, price (for a L)
|
|
Cons:
|
Not 2.8
|
|
|
Well, I guess that I am not totally objective in this review because I was using the EF-S 18-55 kit lens before.
The pictures are just sharp (not the case with the kit lens) and warm.
However, in low light conditions (e.g., bad weather, poor indoor lighting), this lens shows its limitations (high ISO are quickly required, and the autofocus is also noticeably less precise and fast).
The shift toward the 16-35L is thus an option here ... but the price has to be considered too ...
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2005
|
|
dhphoto
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8786
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, small, cheap for what it covers
|
|
Cons:
|
silly pointless lens hood, f4
|
|
|
A great lens.
Not the widest, not the fastest but reliable, sharp and small. Covers 17,20,24,28,35 lens ranges and is excellent at them all (from a couple of stops down).
Not perfect wide open, but still very good.
'people' love to bash this lens, I rely on it nearly every day
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2005
|
|
JohnR84740
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 382
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent image quality, good contrast, sharp, reasonable price for L glass, nice range
|
|
Cons:
|
slight vignette with filter at wide angle, not 2.8
|
|
|
I have been shooting with this lens for six months now, and have come to appreicate its ability to get the shot in most light. It works well for WA landscapes, interior building shots, and up close candids. Barrel distortion is acceptable for my needs, but is easily correctable in PS.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2005
|
|
Stealthfixr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $649.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Underrated lens--absolute best buy for a WA under $1000 & shares the 77mm filter thread size
|
|
Cons:
|
Not 2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
507
|
952864
|
Nov 18, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$672.06
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.52
|
8.87
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
